April 28, 1980 Loyola Marymount University Volume 57, No. 23
DIRECTOR OF PERSONNEL SERVICES JOHN CLEWIS said he felt that both productivity
and morale have been at high levels in his office, even during peak work periods. Neverthe¬
less, four of his five employees have left the office during the past year.
Staff express concern
about Personnel office
Staffer returns
from leave to
find job gone
by Pat Reagan
Although details have not been disclosed,
University staff have expressed concern over
the circumstances leading up to and sur¬
rounding a medical leave of absence given to
Nonni Anderson.
Formerly the assistant to the director of
Personnel Services John Clewis, Anderson
has been under a physician’s care since the
end of February, when her leave took effect.
Clewis said the leave, in effect for an
indefinite period of time, was “mutually
agreed upon,” but Anderson, contacted
later by the Loyolan, said she felt she was
coerced into accepting it.
She further claimed that neither Clewis nor
vice president for Business Affairs Jdhn
Pfaffinger gave her a specific reason for
their request. ’
Most administrators refused comment bn
the leave, because*as one claimed, “It’s just
too damn sensitive.”’
But as University Provost Sr. Renee
Harrangue, RSHM, told the Loyolan she felt
the leave was ‘ ‘better if not fair, ’ ’ because
“you just can’t put the University on hold for
six months.”
As of January 28, Anderson was officially
given “some time off” by both Clewis and
Pfaffinger.
During the interim, Mary Ellen Pfaffinger
(John Pfaffinger’s wife) was hired as a
temporary employment interviewer, in what
Clewis claimed was not a created position,
but rather “a piece of a whole position.”
Anderson’s other duties— including staff
orientation, J training, and development;
job-related counseling; and safety- — were
either assumed by Clewis, other employees
in the office, or were temporarily set aside.
When Anderson returned to work near the
end of February, she was told by Clewis that
Mrs. Pfaffinger would remain in her office.
“We were in a situation where a lot of
things other than employment had to have
attention in that office',” Clewis said.
Anderson was offered the use of Clewis’
office, but instead opted to work out of what
one person referred to as a “storeroom,”
adjacent to the Office of Personnel Services.
In addition, Clewis instructed employees
under Anderson to bring, their “day-to-day”
problems directly to him, in an effort, he
said, to allow her to “get back in the saddle
again” and assume her full responsibilities.
Asked if he thought Anderson might
interpret these moves as a direct challenge
to her authority, Clewis said, “I certainly
wouldn’t think so.”
Within a week of her return, Nonni
Anderson was granted a medical leave of
absence.
Meanwhile, her job as assistant to the
director of Personnel' Services had been
abolished and a new position created
because., according to Clewis, “You (i.e. the
office) have to grow/’
Bulletins advertising the new position of
assistant director of Personnel Services have
been circulated both internally and off-cam-
pus. The new position is scheduled to be
filled by May 9.
According to Clewis, Anderson is not
qualified for the new, upgraded position,
and the University has neither the responsi¬
bility nor the resources to provide her with
the necessary specialized training.
Clewis said “certain arrangements” had
been made both between himself and
Anderson, and Anderson and the University.
Neither he nor Pfaffinger would elaborate.
‘Asked if Anderson would retain a
(Continued on page 2)
by Pat Reagan
The 1979-80 academic school y ear has
been one of dissatisfaction and strain in
transition , associated with growth at
LMU.
Representative of administration
faculty and staff dissatisfaction has
been the Office of Personnel Services
under director John Clewis where f
— There has been a 100 percent
turnover rate among its five employees
over a one-year period;
—Problems with sporadic understaf¬
fing , heavy workloads and added re¬
sponsibilities have led to an investi¬
gation by the Committee on the Status
of Women into the improper9 recruit¬
ment of at least one University staff
position; *
— Attempts to realign job duties and
expand personnel services, to the Uni¬
versity community 'have, in part, been
noted as speculative reasons for the
granting of a medical leave of absence
to a long-time University employee.
The following look into the Office of
Personnel Services was sparked by a
letter sent to the Loyolan, a copy of the
latest in a series of unsigned letters sent
to various University administrators and
faculty , including Sr. Renee Harrangue,
RSHM, Jody Fisher, and Dr. Virginia
Merriam. •
The letters claimed the situation in the
Office of Personnel Services was ‘ ‘intol¬
erable and in need of investigation. "
University administrators, who have
оц
one hand discounted the allegations
made in the letters, have nevertheless
admi^d . to receiving a number of
complaints pointing to what they feel is
a general staff dissatisfaction with
Clewis.
“Vm concerned because it's a staff
issue and the staff is upset, " said
Fisher, assistant to the dean of Continu¬
ing Education and a member of the
newly-formed Committee of Staff Ad¬
visors to the President,
‘ ‘But where the blame rests, if indeed
there is blame, is the question, ' ' she
said.
Problems in the Office of Personnel
Servicds began to surface in January 1980,
with the transfer of secretary Midge Lee to
the Financial Aid office.
Her transfer, added to existing understaf-
fing and heavy office workloads, prompted
complaints from University administrators
who claimed that their requests were either
not being met or were not being met on time.
Other administrators contacted by the
Loyolan described relations with the office as
ranging from “generally good” to “satisfac¬
tory,” but would not elaborate further.
Vice president for Business Affairs John
Pfaffinger, under whose jurisdiction the
Office of Personnel Services falls, said “I’d
give that department a B+ any day of the
week.”
On January 25, director of Personnel
(Continued on page 2)
Merrifield picks
staff advisors to
provide imput
by John Chandler
As a result of a mid-March meeting of
University staff members, University Presi¬
dent Fr. Donald Merrifield, SJ, has named
12 staff persons to a newly-created Commit¬
tee of Staff Advisors to the President.
The committee consists of four represen¬
tatives from the three areas of staff
personnel — administrative and professional,
office and technical, and custodial services.
According, to assistant to the dean of
Continuing Education Jody Fisher, ballots
were sent to all University staff members.
Although Merrifield kept his appointments
in line with the balloting results in each
category, the committee members were
nevertheless appointed, she said.
The committee’s first meeting was held on
Thursday, April 24, m Merrifield’ s office.
During the nearly two hour meeting, topics
of discussion included low staff morale,
salaries, the criteria for receiving merit
salary increases, the staff grievance proce¬
dure, and the need for more specific job
descriptions.
White those and other issues will continue
to be discussed, one solid result of the
meeting was that Merrifield agreed to meet
with the Physical Plant department staff to
explain and answer question's on the
recommendations made to the University by
Physical Plant consultant Harry Ebert in a
recently completed report. Although he had
no specific date, Merrifield said the meeting
will take place sometime in the next several
weeks.
Merrifield expressed some concern over
the make-up of the committee, specifically,
that the members elected by the staff and
appointed by him do not represent all
aspects of staff work at the University.
“Because this is the first time around, I
decided to go with it that way,” he said.
Merrifield said the committee members will
serve at least one year terms.
'Committee members from the administra¬
tive and professional area are Library
director Betty Blackman, director of Institu¬
tional Research Don Fry, director of Security
Harry Hueston, and Fisher.
Committee members from the office and
technical area are Erianne Aichner, Rebeca
Gomez, Patrice Koda, and Jane McMillan.
Committee members from the custodial
services area are Floyd Kemmesat, Hazel
LeBlanc, Pearlie Mintz, and Effie Porter.
The committee currently has no official
power other than to make recommendations
to Merrifield. Meetings may be called by
either the committee members Or by
Merrifield. Although the committee has no
regularly scheduled meetings at this time,
both Merrifield and Fisher expressed a
desire to hold meetings on a regular basi?.
Asked about his direct involvement in the
committee, Merrifield said that he may
decide to have University Provost Sr. Renee
Harrangue, RSHM, or an assistant to the
President scheduled to arrive next year fill in
for him at future committee meetings.
Merrifield noted that the faculty advisors to
the President meet regularly only with the
Academic vice president.
Merrifield said he established the commit¬
tee to bring about communication among
different staffing levels at the University.
“The question is how the committee will
communicate back to the staff in general,”
he said.
Fisher said that she is responsible for the
organization and distribution of the minutes
(Continued on page 2)
